I just recently had this idea and have not developed it fully yet. But I thought I would post it anyway.

Engine that runs on water:
There is an auto engine that runs on hydrogen. (general motors?)
Modify the auto engine that runs on hydrogen, and make it run on hydrogen and oxygen mixture. This should make it more effiecient, using less hydrogen to get the same power. Take some of the power and send it to a rotating alternator, (or generator) to produce electricity. Send that electrical energy to perform electrolysis on water, converting it to hydrogen and oxygen. Send that hydrogen and oxygen that is produced to the engine to be used as fuel to produce more power.
As with the electric gas hybrid car by (Toyota?), the kinetic coasting energy, and the breaking system used to stop the car, can be sent to a battery system to charge up a battery, and that electrical energy can be used to also cause electolysis in the water to produce hydrogen and oxygen to fuel the engine.
Associated questions:
Is energy produced in burning of hydrogen same as energy needed to release hydrogen and oxygen from the water? To make this really work it would need the energy of the combustion in the engine to exceed the energy needed to produce hydrogen and oxygen from the water. The hydrogen engine now, is not practical because hydrogen is too expensive. If the energy produced by the engine does not exceed the electrical energy needed to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen, then this system could be used to make the existing hydrogen engine to be financilly practacle. But some hydrogen fuel would need to be purchased to run the engine.
Can a catalyst be used to make the electolysis happen with less electrical energy?
Would this work with sea water directly, or could heat from engine be used to distill sea water to get the salt out for use in the electrolysis separation of hydrogen and oxygen? Does salt need to be removed for the electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen.

Further thoughts on this:
The 1st law of thermodynamics prevents extracting more energy from hydrogen-oxygen combustion that what it takes to split the molecule, and the 2nd law prevents even breaking even.

Now, that being said, it is certainly possible to build hydrogen burning engines, and it has been done, and it is possible to extract hydrogen from water using chemicals or electrolysis. It is not necessary to remove the salt 1st.
You would not break even on the energy. But, using this system you could make the internal combustion engine using hydrogen practical for average drivers, by keeping the cost of the hydrogen that they would need down. As with the electric/gas hybrid cars, the coasting energy could be retrieved by having a breaking system that uses an electric generator attached, and that coasting kinetic energy could be changed into electrical energy for use in separating the hydrogen and oxygen. That hydrogen and oxygen would be fed into the engine for fuel.
The hydrogen and oxygen mixture should produce larger explosions in the cylinders, with smaller amounts of hydrogen, then what you would get with a hydrogen/air mixture, increasing the effiiciency of the engine.

That's what I was going to say so I will just add this. The government and Oil companies can't afford an engine that runs on water it would not happen.

The idea to use braking energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen is a good one. You can do the same thing with a battery, as in a hybrid car. Batteries are less than perfectly efficient but neither is cracking water with electricity. I don't know which would be better in the long run.
Burning hydrogen and oxygen in an internal cumbustion engine is very inefficient. Much more than half of the energy is converted to heat and is lost. Good fuel cells can be more efficient and the electricity can go straight to one or more electric motors propelling the car. The same electric motors can act as generators during braking.

"That's what I was going to say so I will just add this. The government and Oil companies can't afford an engine that runs on water it would not happen."
Antiaging's idea isn't running an engine on water. Water is the exhaust after combining H2 and O2. You have to add at least as much energy to water to convert it to H2 and O2 as you can get by burning H2 and O2.
Antiaging's idea is simply to use kinetic energy during braking to convert some water to H2 and O2. The vehicle would have H2, O2 and water in separate tanks and would convert them back and forth.

...

Why do you think the oil companies buy the rights to these products?

The fuel cell might be efficient, but is it financially practical in the long run? I just saw an expert on engines talking on modern marvels on the history channel. Hydrogen is very desirable as a fuel for engines, (to eliminate air contamination and stop global warming) but he said the cheapest way to produce hydrogen now is from natural gas, and that hydrogen will still have carbons in it, so the exhaust is still polluting, and it defeats the purpose of clean exhaust.
Doesn't the fuel cell involve parts that need to be replaced, making it expensive to operate?
They would probably make a major effort right now to switch to hydrogen for auto engines if they could make it economically affordable.
The inefficiency that you spoke of for a combustion engine using hydrogen and oxygen, (if it is true) could probably be corrected through research and developement. Old gasoline engines in the first cars were very inefficient, and devices were invented to make them more efficient as the years went by.

If the hydrogen combustion process is too volatile for an internal combustion engine, and that would be too dangerous, then what about a jet turbine engine that runs on hydrogen and oxygen?
If the hydrogen and oxygen internal combusion engine would have an effieciency of only 50%, so, what about using this same idea with a hydrogen oxygen jet turbine engine. (That should solve the effieciency problem and the volatility problem. The space shuttle uses hydrogen and oxygen in a combustion chamber without problems from volatility. That is a rocket engine, but that is not too different from an air breathing jet engine. The oxygen can be used to enrich the air coming in and improve the efficiency of the jet turbine.)
Using this system you could make the engine using hydrogen practical for average drivers, by keeping the cost of the hydrogen that they would need down. As with the electric/gas hybrid cars, the coasting energy could be retrieved by having a breaking system that uses an electric generator attached, and that coasting kinetic energy could be changed into electrical energy for use in separating the hydrogen and oxygen in water. That hydrogen and oxygen would be fed into the engine for fuel.
[The electric gasoline hybrid car, with a breaking system attached to an electrical generator which is connected to a large battery, can now save about $7,500 on the price of gasoline, throughout the life of the car.]
A guy on modern marvels on the history channel talking about the hydrogen engine, said that the main problem is that hydrogen is too expensive right now. The main reason to use hydrogen is to stop polluting the air with fossil fuel exhaust and slow down global warming. But, he said the cheapest way to get hydrogen now is from natural gas, and that still has carbon in it, so that defeats the purpose of non polluting exhaust.
The main purpose for trying this would be to make the engine using hydrogen financially affordable to the average driver, and stop polluting the air with fossil fuel exhaust.
In this system you are trying to produce some hydrogen from the kinetic coasting energy of the vehicle, when it comes to a stop, making hydrogen fuel more affordable.

There's no point in even considering getting H2 from fossil fuels. We'd be better off just burning the fossil fuels as we do now. The only thing that makes sense is to have huge "energy farms" that use solar, wind, tide, anything you can think of, to make electricity and convert water to H2 and O2.

The perfect internal combustion engine will never be more than 50% or so efficient. It's a fundamental characteristic of the design. A good, modern car engine is probably close to as efficient as possible. The perfect steam enging can be much more efficient but it has lots of other problems.

I agree that running a fuel cell on natural gas won't solve anything. The carbon in natural gas combines with O2 to make CO2 so we're no better off than just burning the natural gas in a power plant to make electricty, then use the electricity to make H2. Fossil fuels are a dead end.

There is another alternative. I got feedback on this idea from others suggesting that the electrical energy that it takes to transform water into hydrogen and oxygen is too much, and it still might not be practical.
I thought of a way to produce hydrogen much cheaper using less electrical energy.
Practical Hydrogen production:
Use radioactivity to change water into hydrogen peroxide [H2O2], then use electrolysis to change the hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen. It should take less electrical energy to change H2O2 into hydrogen and oxygen than it does to change H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Nuclear waste could be used to provide the radioactive material to do this. The hydrogen and oxygen separation facility could be placed close to a nuclear power plant. The cooling water that is used to cool down the atomic pile is subjected to high levels of radiation, and some of that must be changed into hydrogen peroxide. Run the cooling water from the nuclear power plant to the hydrogen and oxygen separation facility. Separate the hydrogen peroxide from the water (if you can economically do that), and use electolysis sending electrical energy into the hydrogen peroxide and separate that into hydrogen and oxygen. If you can't sepearate the H2O2 from the H2O, then use the electrolysis on the mixture; it would still take less electricity for separtation because some of the electrical energy is going to go into H2O2 molecules.
Without using a nuclear facility you could just put radioactive waste into a large pool of water. Allow the radioactivity to change the water into hydrogen peroxide, and then separate the water from the hydrogen peroxide, and do the electrolysis on the hydrogen peroxide, separating it into hydrogen and oxygen. This should make hydrogen a practical fuel to use in engines world wide, making both hydrogen and oxygen much cheaper to produce.

The problem is that you are then reliant on the nuclear power industry to supply your H202. The number of nuclear facilities needed to produce a worldwide supply of the new fuel would be impractical and not cost-efficient.
I worked with the VP of Ballard Power Systems who are pioneers in the hydrogen fuel cell technology. They are partners with DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Honda. Check out this link as to how they have developed their idea of producing hydrogen for fuel cells, into a plan for the next ten years to supply the world market with new vehicles that incorporate their system. Ballard

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.htm

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

Wow!
"The environment is experiencing tremendous problems at the moment, and one of the most serious of these is that we are losing our oxygen. The oxygen content of the air is becoming so low that it threatens our very existence in some areas. The normal oxygen content of our air is 21 percent. But in some places it is only a fraction of that! In Tokyo, Japan, for example, the oxygen content of the air has dipped to 6 or 7 percent. If it reaches 5 percent, people will begin to die. Tokyo has even put oxygen disbursement centers on its street corners, so that people can get emergency oxygen if they need it."
Wow! This is astonishing nonsense. There's plenty of oxygen unless you climb a very tall mountain. Tokyo has plenty of oxygen. They have air dispensers for days when air pollution is so bad people choke on the smog. It's the added stuff in the air that's the problem, not lack of oxygen.
As for the engine, you put water, salt and the catalyst in one tank and tap the result to run the engine. After you're done you get...water, salt and catalyst. Somehow energy is going to magically appear without anything changing? Water is the "ash" of combining hydrogen and oxygen to get energy. It's never the fuel.

"The amount of energy in the water molecule is thus vast, and has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of energy it takes to break down that molecule."
The fool who wrote this should be viewed with pity.
The energy in a water molecule is not vast, it is pretty good. The energy required to break down the water molecule is EXACTLY the energy that can be gotten by combining hydrogen and oxygen to get water, if everything is perfect and there are no losses.

"Fuel Cells: This method uses oxygen from the atmosphere to complete the burning of the hydrogen in the fuel cell. What comes out of the tail pipe is oxygen and water vapor, but the oxygen originally came from the atmosphere, not from the fuel. And so the use of fuel cells neither takes away nor contributes to the oxygen content of the air."
Huh? Only water vapor comes out of the tail pipe. All oxygen from the air that combines with hydrogen is now part of the resulting water vapor.

"Hydrogen: This fuel is complete in itself. It does not need oxygen from the atmosphere to burn"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I can't read any more. I would flunk a grade-school science student who submitted a paper this full of ridiculous nonsense.

The only way you can get hydrogen this way is by using a metal so reactive that it pulls oxygen atoms off water molecules and thus releases the hydrogen. If that's the case here, the metal is not a catalyst. A catalyst speeds up a reaction without being consumed or changed. The metal in this case, if this is what happens, will oxydize and will become useless after it has oxydized too much to continue the reaction.

You don't seem to understand what I said and seem to be changing my words around. I know that you need to put energy in to break down the molecule. I was proposing using free energy from the radioactivity of spent fuel rods acting on the water. That energy is being put out by nuclear decay, and you don't need to generate any energy to do that.
My final solution to the problem is this, which I already posted elsewhere.

Practical Hydrogen production:
Use radioactivity to change water into hydrogen peroxide [H2O2], then use electrolysis to change the hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen, or use the H202 as the fuel. It should take less electrical energy to change H2O2 into hydrogen and oxygen than it does to change H2O into hydrogen and oxygen.

Radiation can directly interact with a molecule and damage it directly. Because of the abundance of water in the body, radiation is more likely to interact with water. When radiation interacts with water, it produces labile chemical species (free radicals) such as hydronium (H.) and hydroyxls (.OH). Free radicals can produce compounds such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which subsequently exert chemical toxicity.
http://radiologyresearch.org/radiat...t_chapter_2.htm

Radiation is alpha (2 protons and 2 neutrons), beta (fast electron), gamma (electromagnetic radiation)
It looks like an alpha particle, [proton], knocks a hydrogen atom (which is a proton with an electron orbiting it) off of the H2O molecule, changing it to an OH and an H. These free radicals (highly interactive) react with H2O molecules, changing them to H2O2. That seems to be the mechanism based on what I read from that article.
A long time ago I heard that hydrogen peroxide poisoning is a part of radiation sickness.

Final solution: [Parts of this is a reply to someone else.]
After doing research on H2O2 on the web, this looks like the best solution.
Don't burn H2 in an internal combustion engine. Use the Hydrogen peroxide, H2O2 to run turbine engines. They force a mixture of maybe 90% Hydrogen peroxide or so through metal meshes of silver (a catalyst) or permanganate. This causes the H2O2 to split up violently into H2O steam, heat and oxygen an expanding gas to run a turbine engine. (This is essentially what the german uboats had and is also used in turbine automobiles.) An extra fuel can be used to unite with the oxygen and burn producing more pressure. This extra fuel should be H2. No NOx would be produced in this way. The turbine engine is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, because of the high speeds that the turbine can reach.
This sort of engine could replace any fossil fuel burning engine. The exhaust would be steam and non polluting.
The chinese have a car that runs on hydrogen peroxide.
cars that run on hydrogen peroxide Turbine engines
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1004/181374.html

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Hydrogen_20...e_20Car_20Motor
http://members.aol.com/KingstonChas/TheBlueFlame.html

hydrogen powered wankel rotary engine
http://www.monito.com/wankel/hydrogen.html

The idea about grinding up the pieces of alpha emmitters, well you can forget about that. A person on another newsgroup where I presented this idea, alt.sci.physics, said that his cobalt which he keeps in water produces hydrogen peroxide. He is perhaps a doctor and uses it to sterelyze his instruments. So obviously, a strong beta and gamma emmiter will produce H2O2 also. So there is no need to grind up alpha emmiters. Also, using beta and gamma emmitter will allow the use of graphite to limit the number of neutrons entering the water, and greatly decrease any production of tritium, so that will not be a problem. The H2O2 and the hydrogen that is produced using radiactive material will not pose a radiation problem.
[Tritium produces only a weak beta which is not a problem anyway; any production of tritium will be negligible.]
Your opposition to the electrolysis of H2O2 on a scientific basis is obviously incorrect. Water is an electrically neutral molecule also. If electrolysis works on water it will certainly work on H2O2. H2O2 being a much more unstable molecule will require much less eletricity to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen than water would.
Global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels is going to be catastrophic in the future if not checked. That is why hydrogen is seriously being explored as an alternative fuel with hydrogen cars and fueling stations already in operation.
So, here is the idea, which I still think is workable:
Use free energy from radioactivity to change water to H2O2, in effect storing that nuclear energy in chemical form. Separate the H2O2 from the water in the way that it is done now to increase the % of H2O2 in the water; or maybe it will build up enough to a high enough percentage that no separation is necessary. Do electrolysis on some of the mixture, getting cheaper hydrogen and oxygen using less electricity on the H2O2. Use the H2O2 to power turbine engines using the catalysts silver or permanganate to cause it to split into high pressure steam, heat, and oxygen. Inject H2 into the chamber to burn with the oxygen that is there to increase the pressure, producing a high powered efficient turbine engine power.
The exhaust is water or steam. No pollution.
These turbine engines can be used in industry, electrical power production and automobiles, or locomotives.
Still looks to me like a new way to use nuclear power. And it looks like it could be made competitive with fossil fuels, since the energy is free from nuclear power, producing cheaper H2 and oxygen from lower electrical needs for the electrolysis, and also less electrolysis needs to be done, because the main fuel will be H2O2. The hydrogen is only needed in less quantity to help increase the chamber pressure in the turbine engine. The main fuel H2O2, does not need electrolysis and gets its energy from nuclear decay acting on water.


, you can use a variety of catalysts to seperate water.
Barium dioxide, alum-mercury, magnesium, so forth.

It seems to me that global warming is increasing at an accelerating rate and is a much more serious problem then people now think. In a few decades it could be catastrophic.
The real solution is: Tell people world wide to stop having babies, and decrease the human population. -- This means, right now there is no real solution. People will not listen to that and are depending on children to support them when they get old.
Every new person represents the burning of fossil fuel to produce the food to feed him, and the production of more carbon dioxide throughout his life from his own body burning food.
The last I checked the world population goes up by about 93,000,000 people every year. It may be higher than that now.

I'm sorry, antiaging, if you thought my message was directed at your comments. I aimed my message at the link I quoted at the top of my message. The link is to a magical machine that produces hydrogen from tanks containing salt water and a metallic "catalyst". Your idea uses radioactive materials to convert water into H202. The radioactive material in that case is not a catalyst because it is being permanently changed.

Car engines can actually run on water. It was proven, and this works. Be sure to check http://convertcartorunonwater.info for more info about converting car to run on water.

Antiaging.I hope you have also done some research on gas turbine engines.Because I can tell you that they are fuel users by nature.These engines are portrait as being very powerful in power output yes,but the reason for that is fuel,More fuel injected into the engine = stronger jet to spin turbine that is the only reason for there power = FUEL.Turbine Engines also have a very poor efficiency ratio because they rely on the hot exhaust to impinge on the turbine blades to produce power.Also the smaller you make them to less powerful you make them.A jet engine put in a car will at most produce about 50 shaft horse power so to get even more power from the engine will require a gearbox to gear down a mind pumping 120 000 rpm (this number is engine running at 3/4 off its speed and is the sweat spot for delivering power) they are not very good at delivering torque also because of turbine slip,what is meant by that is the moment you engage the wheels on the gearbox it is required that the engine will power the wheels right,but because the engine uses a turbine spinning in a jet off hot air,the torque needed to power the wheels will lead to turbine slowing down slightly (turbine slip) that means you will lose power and it depends on the load you are hauling.What this slip will then produce is unwanted heat and can lead to engine overheating and heat is a partner that runs with these engines,from a automotive jet engine you will get about 750 deg Centi constantly from the outlet pipe.And how do you dispose off that amount off heat safely in a urban environment.

There is also using a turbine engine to spin a generator that powers the traction motors on the wheels.It sounds so serene that this might work.And yes it works exs-Gas Power Stations.But you still run into this brick wall in the car market of efficiency,heat,fuel and gearbox to enable the generator to function in its safe working limits.

Jet Engines are not subtle I can tell you that.Sure starting one up under your cars bonnet in the morning would be very nice to have .

Just a bit of info from what I know about jet engines Good points and Achilles heels from working with them.

Cheers .

I brought this up awhile back and the topic was moved and forgotten. I haven't been able to find any scientific tests to prove or disprove it.

I'm gonna try it one of these days.


http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry2343748

We should just kill the idea of fuel altogether and just focus on high efficency electric cars. If we had the green power collection stations for solar, wind and geothermal, then that electricity could go directly to batteries and directly to powering the vehicle. Then you do not need to introduce loss in breaking the molecules and loss in burning the hydrogen and you do not need to build water fueling stations.

The only reason to go hydrogen over electric is because you want more power or to go faster. And really do we NEED to go more then 55 mph (80 kph)?

Hydrogen technology is just another fuel technology designed to enforce people to buy fuel.

No car runs on water. The car runs on hydrogen. If you completely clear out one of these water running cars and then add water and then try to start it what happens? Nothing, because it would take hours or days to produce enought hydrogen to do anything with.

The world is going to bust wide open with engines that run on water. You should do some research online and the directions for doing it yourself is all right here. However the Hydrogen fuel cell conversion idea to run this along with a gas engine just bypass that and figure out the water spark idea Stanley Meyers made because others on Youtube are buildign it. Then run your car off 100% water. A doctor in Florida the other day found sea water could burn when blasted with sound waves. You should look into this also as some of the hydrogen fuel cell builders have also found the water to produce more hydrogen with throwing a speaker in the mix and putting sound waves into the water.

The idea is real people it works read the US patents on it and then wonder why we have been burning gas for so long.

Not until a viable, miniature fusion device is invented. Until then, cars running on water is a hopeless dream.



That is not a fuel source for a car to run on water, as the energy level required to break the bonds of the H₂O molecules and thus free the hydrogen is as least as much as the freed hydrogen yields when used. Thus, it is a negative energy output system and not useful for such at all.



Maybe because that is the only viable fuel source we currently have.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Go ahead and try it, but it is not going to give you any increase in your mileage, sorry The fact is that to extract the hydrogen that you want to burn, you need to inject electrons in the form of a current through your electrodes. The energy required is less than the energy output is from burning the hydrogen. And the current can only come from one place, from burning more gasoline.

Thus, at best you will get 0 increase in mileage, but most likely you will see a small degradation. I don't think it will be very significant, because any hydrogen production device will be very small scale anyhow and will neither require much current nor create enough hydrogen to create a significant boost.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Wreck7 ,badeskov is right on this e-bay item, you cant get something for nothing even if you paint it dayglow red and orange,the only one turning anything into anything was the guy selling that mess.he turned it into cash.But the idea has been around since early gasoline motors,to take a little knock out of the engine at high power settings. Like the Aircraft engines of WWII water injected Packard V-12`s ,Rolls Royce Merlin V-12`s ect very limited in duration and results varied at different alt`s But its at least getting people thinking again about alt,fuels and solutions.D

This doesn't work on the same principle as water injection. The way I understand it,it is just a fuel additive. Basically adding small amounts of hydrogen to the fuel air mixture. It supposedly draws 11 amps give or take through a mixture of baking soda and distilled water. I'm no chemist but it sounds feasible to me. Whether it really works or not is anybodys guess. Although I haven't found one single person that can give me a firsthand account and actually show me their setup. Until I see it working with my own 2 eyes I'm going to remain skeptical. I'd like it to work.

Bottom Line ITs on E-Bay,I think someone would of been on the news and not in a laughable sence.But keep lookin soon we may see a electric car that really works. Merc,Benz has been working on hydrogen for a good while .Hard to pump that gas.Remember the Hindenburge

From what I've read on many other sites, this kind of technology still needs you to adjust your carborator, fuel lines and such. Perhaps you'll need a bigger alternator or better battery too. It is easy to say "just" 11 amps, but that is like running two high end stereos in your car!

Here is another kit: http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/?gclid=CNT4n...CFQ4UiQod4yR5qQ
But, it is $1000

My friend wants to try this and is going to get a book on it. http://savefuel.ca/hydrogen/ebook.php?id=ebook
This book is only $40.

I'm waiting myself on more research to be done by the DOE or other Gov Org.